Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Yep I'm feeling all kinds of upset and sadden over this (German beer is not helping).

Also do people not understand how people of color might be upset with this verdict?

I certainly do.

But I also think they may have been sold a bill of goods on this case. This is not Rodney King where you had indisputable video evidence of a racial crime being committed. The facts of this case were so murky and only 2 people really know what happened: One is dead and the other isn't going to self-incrimanate himself (if guilty). Why some segments of our society deemed this a worthy case - absent any real facts - to gauge the current state of our race relations is beyond me.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

I agree that assumes what happens that night (which the evidence supports as one of if not the most likely outcome) but you're avoiding the question of what would you do.

So assuming that is what happened, what would you have done?

I didn't avoid the question, I answered it directly. I said "to answer your question I would not have taken that beating." I have no problem admitting that because to me it is an obvious thing to admit. However here it is also a meaningless thing to admit because the situation you laid out was not proven to have happened (or, to my knowledge, even to have been likely).

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by Haloti92

No. And that is my point. It is a fact, not conjecture, that Martin was within yards of where he turned the corner 4 minutes after he turned the corner.

Now we can use conjecture as to why he waited around. He was suddenly paralyzed with fear, for example. He tripped and fell hit his head and blacked out for a few minutes. But I don't see how anything is more plausible than, he wanted a confrontation.

If you are being followed and then turn the corner and decide to stop and wait for the follower, are you not most likely looking for a confrontation? And again, I am not talking fistfight, but simply a 'confrontation,' including verbal, including possibly amicable and short-lived confrontation until everyone goes their way.

How in the world do you know he was waiting for his follower?

I know if I or people I know actually WANT confrontation, I would actually approach them...not wait somewhere for the possibility of them bumping into me.

I also have been followed before by others and sometimes I have waited at a particular spot or area if I believed they lost track of me for a while...sometimes you stay put.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Z is free but may be a marked man. He'll live in fear for his life. Casey Anthony who was
acquitted of killing her 2 yr old child still gets death threats. Z paid his atty's fees via
donations from the public. Look for his book on Amazon.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

Why some segments of our society deemed this a worthy case - absent any real facts - to gauge the current state of our race relations is beyond me.

You may think it is beyond you, but deep down it probably isn't. You proved as much yourself when you and HR conceded my earlier point: that you could conceive of a different verdict had Trayvon been a blonde white kid named Jack. As long as you can conceive of such a thing when you know it should not matter, then you can conceive of why "some segments" mistrust 'the system.'

(This post was not intended as a burn, by the way. I truly do believe you get more than you think you do, if that makes sense.)

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

That's what you wouldn't have done. Which means you would have done... what?

Why are you pursuing this? You're trying to drag me into a trap hypothetical that is meaningless and dishonest, given that it was not proven to have happened or, again to my knowledge, even to have been likely.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

No, it doesn't.

Lets assume GZ "initiated" this (for the record, I don't believe he did). He still had a legal right to (1) be there, (2) follow Trayvon and (3) call the cops. None of those actions are illegal or negate a self defense claim.

Speaking from an evidentiary standpoint, there's nothing to convict upon.

All I know is this...if someone is creepily following me in the dark and rain, not identifying themselves, and we bump into each other, I would have no reservations hitting that person. How long would I continue to fight...I don't know. If I got the upper hand, it would depend on how long until I felt safe to leave...which typically depends on whether the other person is disarmed or incapable of following me once I stopped.

I know the law, and I just think it allows for so much interpretation, there are going to be rulings on both sides that are incredibly frustrating for both sides.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

Why are you pursuing this? You're trying to drag me into a trap hypothetical that is meaningless and dishonest, given that it was not proven to have happened or, again to my knowledge, even to have been likely.

To prove a point. And a secondary point, that I knew you wouldn't answer the question.

Because answering that question you would have said that you would have done the exact same thing he did. And by your response as to not knowing whose voice it was or who was on top, it's clear you didn't watch the trial.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Speaking from an evidentiary standpoint, there's nothing to convict upon.

Never said there was.

Over and over I've remarked on the oddness and weird-smellingness of the case to me. I do not believe GZ was 100% innocent in TM's death. I believe there are probably things he could've done better and probably things we'll never know. I believe race factored into it for him. But I never said I didn't understand why he got off.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

You may think it is beyond you, but deep down it probably isn't. You proved as much yourself when you and HR conceded my earlier point: that you could conceive of a different verdict had Trayvon been a blonde white kid named Jack. As long as you can conceive of such a thing when you know it should not matter, then you can conceive of why "some segments" mistrust 'the system.'

(This post was not intended as a burn, by the way. I truly do believe you get more than you think you do, if that makes sense.)

It makes sense. And mis-trusting the system base on prior injustices makes sense, too. The problem is when you hold up this murky case, where really no independent party really knows what went down, as an example of that injustice. Personally, I don't think that furthers the cause.

Re: George Zimmerman Trial

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

All I know is this...if someone is creepily following me in the dark and rain, not identifying themselves, and we bump into each other, I would have no reservations hitting that person. How long would I continue to fight...I don't know. If I got the upper hand, it would depend on how long until I felt safe to leave...which typically depends on whether the other person is disarmed or incapable of following me once I stopped.

I know the law, and I just think it allows for so much interpretation, there are going to be rulings on both sides that are incredibly frustrating for both sides.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And you just broke the law and justified that person responding with deadly force.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin